We would be OK with a tightly enumerated set of human rights, but support of human rights generically would invite mission creep.
“Internationally recognized human rights” or just human rights is a very broad realm and this formulation would, even if circumscribed by the caveat of within the mission for ICANN, be an open invitation for various ICANN constituencies and governments to demand that the organization involve itself in any number of human rights activates tangentially related to its mission, e.g. financing expanded broadband and connectivity consistent with the right to development, fulfilling the “right to the Internet” that is being kicked around, or censoring content on the Internet consistent with the right to be forgotten or prohibitions on defamation of religion.
Regardless of whether these missions are well-intentioned, they should be outside of the ICANN remit. But I do not see any realistic possibility of strict adherence to narrow ICANN mission holding firm in the face of the political pressure of pursuing these other human rights if the bylaws commit ICANN to respect the entire universe of human rights.
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 1:45 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig; [log in to unmask]
Cc: Schaefer, Brett
Subject: RE: CCWG comments last call
Is there any way to word it that would change your dissent, or is the objection generic?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 1:39 PM
> To: Mueller, Milton L; [log in to unmask]
> Cc: 'Schaefer, Brett'
> Subject: RE: CCWG comments last call
>
> Milton/Colleagues
>
> I think that the draft is quite fine and for the main I agree with it.
> Without in any way seeking to relitigate the issue, however, I know
> that the human rights language is one from which Heritage would
> dissent. Is there some way of generically making clear that the NCSG
> comments do not reflect the agreement of all NCSG members?
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 4, 2015 12:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CCWG comments last call
>
> I have made some revisions. We seem to have rough consensus that we
> are opposed to the proposed voting allocations and consider them and
> two other things serious enough to raise doubts about whether the
> CCWG- Accountability proposal enhances ICANN's accountability. The
> comments now note that we are not unanimous on this but do have a
> preponderance of opinion that would constitute rough consensus. We all
> seem to be in agreement about our discussion of the so-called "freedom
> to contract" section and the section on advice from public
> authorities. We also now seem to have a way forward on how to handle
> the HR commitment, though that has only been floated a few minutes ago
> so it needs more review.
>
> In reviewing these comments, please refrain from the temptation to
> introduce minor wordsmithing - we really don't have time for it at
> this point.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGBXO5oOiN_FxivPFkHjz3Gc2w3AT2
> PeJznrXPw2
> fJ4/edit
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
|
